913 F.3d 482
5th Cir.2019Background
- Mejia, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004, was served an NTA (no hearing date listed), released by ICE, and later ordered removed in absentia in November 2004; the record said he failed to provide his address.
- Mejia was removed in 2010, reentered in 2011, apprehended in 2014, and DHS reinstated the 2004 removal order; Mejia learned of reinstatement in October 2014.
- On October 24, 2014 Mejia filed a motion to reopen to seek asylum, withholding, and CAT protection, arguing (1) he never received proper notice of the 2004 hearing and (2) country conditions in Honduras had materially changed.
- The IJ denied reopening (no valid address given, no material change in country conditions, and no sua sponte reopening), and the BIA affirmed.
- Mejia petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit; the court dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied in part on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review denial of reopening based on lack of notice of in absentia order | Mejia: BIA decision denying reopening for lack of notice is reviewable; raises legal/due-process questions | Gov: §1231(a)(5) reinstatement strips review; removal order reinstated after reentry | Court: Jurisdiction exists under §1252(a)(2)(D) for legal/due-process claims; not required to show "gross miscarriage" because motion to reopen is not collateral |
| Whether Mejia was entitled to notice (did he provide a valid address?) | Mejia: told ICE he would live with his mother; ICE confirmed mother's address; therefore he did provide an address and lacked notice | Gov/BIA: Record is equivocal; Mejia did not provide a correct, confirmable address; NTA warned him to keep court informed | Held: BIA’s factual finding that Mejia failed to provide a valid address was not an abuse of discretion; denial of reopening on lack-of-notice grounds affirmed |
| Changed country conditions exception to the 90-day bar | Mejia: evidence shows worsening gang violence and government inability—material change warranting reopening for changed conditions | Gov: evidence shows continuation, not material change; §1231(a)(5) limits review of such fact-based determinations | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction under §1231(a)(5) to review the BIA’s factual assessment of changed-country-conditions; claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Sua sponte reopening and due process claim | Mejia: BIA mischaracterized facts and disregarded claims, violating due process; BIA should have reopened sua sponte | Gov: Sua sponte reopening is discretionary and unreviewable; no liberty interest in motion to reopen | Held: Discretionary refusal to reopen sua sponte is unreviewable; due process claim fails because no cognizable liberty interest in reopening |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (motions to reopen/reconsider are reviewable as part of jurisdictional framework)
- Rodriguez-Saragosa v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2018) (discusses §1231(a)(5) reinstatement and reviewability of in absentia notice claims)
- Gomez–Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for denial of motion to reopen; highly deferential abuse-of-discretion)
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (factual determinations about country conditions are not reviewable)